B1 closure trio (post-T-014): business + security + performance baseline#16
Merged
Conversation
…2 prep activated Closes B1 — Drop to EL1 + exception infrastructure. The fresh closure trio replaces the 2026-04-28 trio's load-bearing role: that trio approved B1 implementation-complete based on host-test + miri + paper-review evidence; the maintainer-side QEMU smoke (still `Pending QEMU smoke verification` on UNSAFE-2026-0019/0020/0021 at the time) had not run. When the maintainer ran it on 2026-05-06, the smoke surfaced an idle-dispatch regression. T-014 fixed the regression; the comprehensive multi-agent code review (also 2026-05-06) generated α/β/γ doc-polish PRs; today's trio records what B1 actually is once smoke-verified end-to-end. ## Three new review artefacts - docs/analysis/reviews/business-reviews/2026-05-07-B1-closure.md — Period 2026-04-28 → 2026-05-07. What landed (T-014 + ADR-0026 + PRs #12 / #13 / #14 / #15); what changed in the plan (B1 reopen → T-014 fix → fresh closure; B2 prep reactivated; ADR-0026 repurposed); what we learned (smoke is the project's only end-to- end liveness oracle; ADR analysis must simulate, not just argue; comprehensive review's blind spot was "did you actually run the program?"; bot-driven review-rounds are productive when findings are factual-mechanical, less so when stylistic). Adjustments include "no closure-trio without recorded smoke", write-adr skill simulation-table check, comprehensive-review Track K — Live execution. - docs/analysis/reviews/security-reviews/2026-05-07-B1-closure.md — Eight axes, all OK. ADR-0026 / T-014 introduce no new attack surface, capability widening, memory-safety hazard, or threat- model shift. UNSAFE-2026-0014 third Amendment for register_idle; UNSAFE-2026-0019/0020 partial-verification + post-T-014 smoke Amendments; UNSAFE-2026-0021 no-verification Amendment. Eight inherited forward-flagged items unchanged at original severity. Verdict: Approve. - docs/analysis/reviews/performance-optimization-reviews/2026-05-07-B1-closure.md — Re-baseline. Net footprint-neutral vs 2026-04-28: .text 21,792 bytes (-116), .rodata 2,928 (+144), .bss 22,256 (+8). The +144 .rodata is panic-message clarity strings; the +8 .bss is idle: Option<TaskHandle>. Smoke 5.5–6.5 ms boot-to-end, zero events. 11 P-numbered proposals from Track D remain queued (P3 partially landed by γ; P1 / P10 / P4 highest-ROI near-term). No proposals to merge this cycle. Verdict: Merge. ## Status flips + index updates - T-014 In Review → Done. T-014 user-story file's review-history gains row 4 recording the maintainer's independent verification and the closure trio's landing. - docs/analysis/tasks/phase-b/README.md — T-014 row to Done. - docs/roadmap/phases/phase-b.md — sub-breakdown item 7 (T-014) flipped to Done; B1 status block rewritten ("B1 closed 2026-05-07") with citations to the three new review artefacts. - docs/roadmap/current.md — top callout rewritten to record B1 truly closed (2026-05-07); active phase remains B; active milestone advances to B2 (MMU activation); active task cleared (B2 prep / ADR-0027 drafting opens next per ADR-0025 §Rule 1); audit status footnote gains the 2026-05-07 update. - The three review-folder README index tables (business / security / performance) gain 2026-05-07-B1-closure rows. ## Verification recap - cargo fmt --check, cargo host-clippy -D warnings, cargo kernel-clippy -D warnings, cargo kernel-build — all clean. - cargo host-test 25 + 93 + 34 = 152/152. - cargo +nightly miri test 152/152 clean. - QEMU smoke at HEAD e9fa019 reproduces the full demo trace + the boot-to-end elapsed = ... line; -d int,unimp,guest_errors empty for the entire ~5.8 ms run. ## What stays open for δ + B2 prep - δ — write ADR-0023 placeholder file with Status: Deferred body (the README index gained the row in α; the file body is δ's job). - δ — endpoint rollback / ipc_cancel_recv ADR before B2 lands the first userspace destroy path (Track A non-blocker; SchedError::Deadlock rollback leaves endpoint in RecvWaiting). - B2 prep — ADR-0027 (kernel virtual memory layout) drafting + docs/architecture/memory-management.md design-first. The ADR's Dependency chain opens T-015 in the same commit per ADR-0025 §Rule 1. Refs: ADR-0026, ADR-0022, ADR-0025, T-014, B1 closure trio Audit: UNSAFE-2026-0014, UNSAFE-2026-0019, UNSAFE-2026-0020, UNSAFE-2026-0021 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
ⓘ You've reached your Qodo monthly free-tier limit. Reviews pause until next month — upgrade your plan to continue now, or link your paid account if you already have one. |
Reviewer's GuideMarks B1 milestone as truly closed after T-014 by updating roadmap/status docs and adding a fresh business/security/performance closure trio, while documenting the T-014 idle-dispatch refactor’s effects on tests, unsafe-audit status, and future B2/ADR-0027 work. Sequence diagram for B1 closure verification and documentation workflow (sequence)sequenceDiagram
actor Maintainer
participant HostTests as Host_test_suite
participant Miri as Miri_runner
participant Qemu as Qemu_smoke
participant UnsafeLog as Unsafe_audit_log
participant Roadmap as Roadmap_docs
participant Reviews as Closure_trio_docs
participant Tasks as Task_T014_doc
Maintainer->>HostTests: run cargo host-test
HostTests-->>Maintainer: 152/152 tests pass
Maintainer->>Miri: run cargo +nightly miri test
Miri-->>Maintainer: 152/152 tests pass
Maintainer->>Qemu: run ./tools/run-qemu.sh
Qemu-->>Maintainer: full demo trace\n"tyrne: all tasks complete"\n"boot-to-end elapsed = ... ns"\n-d int,unimp,guest_errors empty
Maintainer->>UnsafeLog: append Amendments for\nUNSAFE-2026-0014/0019/0020/0021
UnsafeLog-->>Maintainer: audit status updated
Maintainer->>Tasks: flip T-014 status\nIn Review -> Done
Tasks-->>Maintainer: T-014 documented as Done
Maintainer->>Roadmap: update current.md and phase-b.md\nB1 status -> closed 2026-05-07\nActive milestone -> B2
Roadmap-->>Maintainer: roadmap reflects B1 closure
Maintainer->>Reviews: add 2026-05-07 B1 closure\nBusiness review
Maintainer->>Reviews: add 2026-05-07 B1 closure\nSecurity review
Maintainer->>Reviews: add 2026-05-07 B1 closure\nPerformance baseline
Reviews-->>Maintainer: closure trio published
Maintainer->>Roadmap: update next task / review trigger\nB2 prep (ADR-0027) now active
Roadmap-->>Maintainer: roadmap points to B2 prep
Flow diagram for B1 lifecycle and transition to B2 (flow)flowchart TD
A_B0["B0 milestone closed\n2026-04-27 (PR #9)"]
B_B1_impl_claim["B1 implementation marked complete\n2026-04-28 (PR #10; T-012 + T-013)"]
C_Pending_smoke["UNSAFE-2019/20/21 carry\nPending QEMU smoke verification"]
D_Smoke_regression["2026-05-06: maintainer runs QEMU smoke\nIdle-dispatch regression discovered"]
E_B1_reopened["B1 milestone reopened\nper smoke-regression mini-retro"]
F_ADR0026["ADR-0026 Accepted\nIdle dispatch via separate fallback slot"]
G_T014_impl["T-014 implemented\nScheduler::idle + register_idle"]
H_T014_in_review["T-014 In Review\nVerification green"]
I_T014_done["2026-05-07: T-014 Done\nMaintainer smoke re-run matches"]
J_B1_true_closed["B1 milestone truly closed\n2026-05-07"]
K_Closure_trio["2026-05-07 closure trio landed\nBusiness + Security + Performance"]
L_B2_prep_active["B2 prep reactivated\nADR-0027 (kernel virtual memory layout)"]
A_B0 --> B_B1_impl_claim
B_B1_impl_claim --> C_Pending_smoke
C_Pending_smoke --> D_Smoke_regression
D_Smoke_regression --> E_B1_reopened
E_B1_reopened --> F_ADR0026
F_ADR0026 --> G_T014_impl
G_T014_impl --> H_T014_in_review
H_T014_in_review --> I_T014_done
I_T014_done --> J_B1_true_closed
J_B1_true_closed --> K_Closure_trio
K_Closure_trio --> L_B2_prep_active
Flow diagram for B1 closure trio documentation relationships (flow)flowchart TD
subgraph StatusDocs["Roadmap and task status docs"]
A_current["docs/roadmap/current.md\nB1 closed 2026-05-07"]
B_phaseB["docs/roadmap/phases/phase-b.md\nStatus: B1 closed"]
C_T014["docs/analysis/tasks/phase-b/T-014-idle-dispatch-fallback.md\nStatus: Done"]
D_TaskIndex["docs/analysis/tasks/phase-b/README.md\nT-014 row: Done"]
end
subgraph ClosureTrio["B1 closure trio (2026-05-07)"]
E_Biz["Business review\n2026-05-07-B1-closure.md"]
F_Sec["Security review\n2026-05-07-B1-closure.md"]
G_Perf["Performance baseline\n2026-05-07-B1-closure.md"]
end
subgraph ReviewIndexes["Review index READMEs"]
H_BizIndex["business-reviews/README.md\nadds 2026-05-07 row"]
I_SecIndex["security-reviews/README.md\nadds 2026-05-07 row"]
J_PerfIndex["performance-optimization-reviews/README.md\nadds 2026-05-07 row"]
end
K_OldTrio["2026-04-28 B1 closure trio\nmarked historical only"]
A_current --> ClosureTrio
B_phaseB --> ClosureTrio
C_T014 --> ClosureTrio
D_TaskIndex --> ClosureTrio
E_Biz --> H_BizIndex
F_Sec --> I_SecIndex
G_Perf --> J_PerfIndex
K_OldTrio --> E_Biz
K_OldTrio --> F_Sec
K_OldTrio --> G_Perf
H_BizIndex --> A_current
I_SecIndex --> A_current
J_PerfIndex --> A_current
File-Level Changes
Tips and commandsInteracting with Sourcery
Customizing Your ExperienceAccess your dashboard to:
Getting Help
|
|
Caution Review failedThe pull request is closed. ℹ️ Recent review info⚙️ Run configurationConfiguration used: defaults Review profile: CHILL Plan: Pro Run ID: 📒 Files selected for processing (18)
📝 WalkthroughWalkthroughThis PR adds comprehensive B1 milestone closure documentation, establishes mandatory ADR simulation requirements in the template and skill, defers cross-table capability revocation policy as ADR-0023, introduces endpoint-state rollback decision ADR-0032 with implementation task T-015, and updates status across roadmaps, task indexes, and business/security reviews. All changes are documentation-only with no code modifications. ChangesADR Governance & Template Updates
New Decisions & Implementation Tasks
B1 Milestone Closure & Roadmap Status
Estimated code review effort🎯 2 (Simple) | ⏱️ ~12 minutes Possibly related PRs
Poem
✨ Finishing Touches🧪 Generate unit tests (beta)
Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out. Comment |
![sourcery-ai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/48477?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hey - I've left some high level feedback:
- You now repeat fairly detailed B1 closure metadata (dates, commit hashes, test counts, smoke description) across
current.md,phase-b.md, the T-014 task file, and the three closure reviews; consider centralizing these canonical numbers in a single source (or a small include-style snippet) and referencing them to reduce the risk of future drift. - The new process rules you articulate in the business review (e.g., 'no closure-trio without recorded smoke', ADR simulation tables) are only captured narratively; it might be worth promoting them immediately into the relevant standards/skills files as normative checklists so that future work doesn’t rely on readers extracting them from a long retrospective.
Prompt for AI Agents
Please address the comments from this code review:
## Overall Comments
- You now repeat fairly detailed B1 closure metadata (dates, commit hashes, test counts, smoke description) across `current.md`, `phase-b.md`, the T-014 task file, and the three closure reviews; consider centralizing these canonical numbers in a single source (or a small include-style snippet) and referencing them to reduce the risk of future drift.
- The new process rules you articulate in the business review (e.g., 'no closure-trio without recorded smoke', ADR simulation tables) are only captured narratively; it might be worth promoting them immediately into the relevant standards/skills files as normative checklists so that future work doesn’t rely on readers extracting them from a long retrospective.Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment and I'll use the feedback to improve your reviews.
…on table" rules Promote the two process learnings the 2026-05-07 B1 closure retrospective identified into normative checklists at the standards / skills layer, so future work doesn't rely on readers extracting them from a long retrospective. ## Closure-trio acceptance: smoke trace required `docs/analysis/reviews/business-reviews/master-plan.md` §Acceptance criteria gains a new rule: for milestone-completion and phase-closure triggers only, the *What landed* section must include a verbatim copy of the most recent QEMU smoke trace + an `-d int,unimp,guest_errors` event count. A milestone cannot promote past `In Review` to `Done` without this evidence; *narrative* claims of smoke-pass are insufficient. Codified after the 2026-05-06 B1 smoke-regression mini-retro and the 2026-05-07 B1 closure retro §"What we learned" demonstrated that 152 host tests + 152 miri tests + paper-review approval can pass a kernel that hangs at runtime; the smoke is the project's only end-to-end liveness oracle. Maintainer-initiated mini-retros and adhoc reviews are exempt (no closure semantics). ## ADR Simulation section for state-machine ADRs `docs/decisions/template.md` and `.claude/skills/write-adr/SKILL.md` gain a new *Simulation* sub-section under *Decision outcome* + an acceptance-criterion bullet. For multi-step state-machine ADRs (capability flows, IPC handshakes, scheduler dispatch, exception entry, MMU/TLB transitions, syscall ABI handshakes), the body must include a 3-5 row table walking the worst-case interaction through the proposed shape — `(state-pre, action, state-post, switch target / observable effect)`. For non-state-machine subjects (process, governance, dependency policy, single-decision shape), the section is omitted with a one-line "Not applicable" note. Codified after ADR-0026's table caught what ADR-0022's prose-only reasoning had missed; the 2026-05-07 B1 closure retro §"What we learned" is the source. The discipline is what would have surfaced the demo's three-task moment (B unblocked + A yielding + idle in FIFO) before ADR-0022 Accepted, instead of the kernel hang surfacing it 14 days later. Refs: 2026-05-07 B1 closure retrospective, ADR-0022, ADR-0026, sourcery-ai PR #16 review feedback (process-rules-into-checklists) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…e-b.md trim Address sourcery-ai PR #16 review feedback: B1 closure metadata (test counts, ELF section sizes, smoke trace, audit Amendments) appears across current.md, phase-b.md, T-014 review-history, and the three closure reviews; centralize the source of truth in the closure trio and trim the most verbose downstream restatement. ## Closure-trio canonical-source callouts (3 files) Each of the three 2026-05-07 closure reviews (business / security / performance) gains a callout at the top of its body explicitly naming the trio as the source of truth for B1's closing metrics. Other locations referencing B1 metrics (current.md, phase-b.md, T-014 review-history, unsafe-log Amendments) are documented as *summaries at their layer of abstraction*; corrections start at the trio. Reduces drift risk: when a number changes (e.g., a post-closure follow-up adds a test), the trio is what gets corrected first; downstream summaries follow. ## phase-b.md Status block trim The B1 milestone Status block in phase-b.md previously restated the closure trio's headline numbers verbatim (T-013 + T-012 + T-014 commit references, audit-log Amendment list, B5+ caller trigger). Trimmed to a kompakt pointer at the closure trio entry point (the business retro), preserving the *trigger* for the Pending audit notes' clearance but dropping the duplication. Reduces the same-fact-three-places drift risk the sourcery review flagged. current.md and the T-014 review-history are intentionally not trimmed: each is at a different abstraction level (current.md is the reader's pointer; T-014's history is task-level chronicle), and brief restatements at those layers are useful navigation markers, not pure duplication. Refs: sourcery-ai PR #16 review feedback (centralize-canonical-numbers) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
Closes δ.1 of the post-B1-closure follow-up arc. ADR-0023's slot was recorded as "accept-deferred" at the B0 closure (2026-04-27), but the file did not exist; the README index gained a no-link row in α (PR #13), and the glossary's CDT entry pointed at the missing path. This commit lands the placeholder body so: - The in-tree references that mention ADR-0023 (glossary, phase-b.md ledger, decisions/README.md index, the B0 closure security review prose) resolve to a citable artefact instead of a 404. - The deferral conditions are recorded at the slot itself rather than scattered across review prose; future agents recognise when the trigger fires (multi-task server arc; first userspace driver with sub-cap delegation; threat-model escalation). - The four-option sketch (whole-system CDT, per-table + back-pointer, explicit revoke-token, indefinite defer to userspace) gives a future ADR author a starting analysis instead of a blank page. Status remains `Deferred`. The body is a placeholder, not a load- bearing decision; when a trigger fires, the body gets rewritten in place with a Status flip from `Deferred` to `Proposed` (then `Accepted`). The append-only rule that protects original Accepted bodies does not apply to Deferred placeholders. ## Files changed - docs/decisions/0023-cross-table-capability-revocation-policy.md (new) — placeholder body with deferral conditions, options sketch, references. - docs/decisions/README.md — index row gains the file link (was a prose-only no-link row from α). - docs/glossary.md — CDT entry's "no file at HEAD" qualification removed; clean link to the placeholder. Refs: ADR-0023, ADR-0014, ADR-0017, B0 closure security review 2026-04-27 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
![gemini-code-assist[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/956858?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Code Review
This pull request formally closes the B1 milestone for the Tyrne project following the resolution of an idle-dispatch regression. It includes the implementation of T-014, the acceptance of ADR-0026, and a comprehensive suite of documentation and polish updates. The pull request also provides a complete B1 closure trio, including a business retrospective, security review, and performance baseline. Review feedback suggests minor terminology clarifications in the business retrospective to improve clarity regarding project phases.
|
|
||
| The bug is exactly what a four-row table of `(queue-state-pre, action, queue-state-post)` walked through `unblock_receiver_on` + `yield_now` would have surfaced before the ADR Accept. ADR-0022 didn't write that table; ADR-0026 §Decision outcome does, as the central evidence for why Option B is the correct shape. **The same critique fits every multi-step state-machine ADR the project has shipped:** ADR-0014 cap-derivation tree (had its bug-discoveries via riders post-Accept rather than via simulation pre-Accept), ADR-0017 IPC primitive set (same), ADR-0019 scheduler shape (same), ADR-0022 idle-location (this one). | ||
|
|
||
| Adjustment: extend the [`write-adr` skill](../../../../.claude/skills/write-adr/SKILL.md) with a *Simulation* check item. For every multi-step state-machine ADR (capability flows, IPC handshakes, scheduler dispatch, exception entry, etc.), the body must include a 3-5 row table walking the worst-case interaction through. The simulation table is a *structural discipline* on the body, not a stylistic suggestion. Phase α adopts this for ADR-0027 onwards. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The term "Phase α" is confusing here, as "α" was previously used to label a specific documentation PR (#13) and the project follows a Phase A/B/C nomenclature. Since ADR-0027 is part of the B2 milestone preparation, it would be clearer to refer to "B2 prep" or "The project".
Suggested change
| Adjustment: extend the [`write-adr` skill](../../../../.claude/skills/write-adr/SKILL.md) with a *Simulation* check item. For every multi-step state-machine ADR (capability flows, IPC handshakes, scheduler dispatch, exception entry, etc.), the body must include a 3-5 row table walking the worst-case interaction through. The simulation table is a *structural discipline* on the body, not a stylistic suggestion. Phase α adopts this for ADR-0027 onwards. | |
| Adjustment: extend the [`write-adr` skill](../../../../.claude/skills/write-adr/SKILL.md) with a *Simulation* check item. For every multi-step state-machine ADR (capability flows, IPC handshakes, scheduler dispatch, exception entry, etc.), the body must include a 3-5 row table walking the worst-case interaction through. The simulation table is a *structural discipline* on the body, not a stylistic suggestion. B2 prep adopts this for ADR-0027 onwards. |
| - [ ] **Extend `write-adr` skill with a Simulation check.** For every multi-step state-machine ADR, the body must include a 3-5 row queue-state / handshake-state / dispatch-state simulation table. Trigger: drafted alongside ADR-0027 (B2 prep) so the rule lands with its first user. | ||
| - [ ] **Add Track K — Live execution to the comprehensive-review template.** Promote Track F §F-1 to a standalone live-execution track that boots the kernel under QEMU and traces one demo flow end-to-end. Trigger: when the next full-tree review is commissioned (no scheduled trigger; maintainer-initiated). | ||
| - [ ] **B2 prep — ADR-0027 (kernel virtual memory layout) drafting.** Reactivated post-B1-closure; design-first applies (`docs/architecture/memory-management.md` lands alongside or before the implementation, mirroring T-008's `scheduler.md`/`ipc.md` and T-012's `exceptions.md` precedents). The ADR's *Dependency chain* section opens the implementation task (T-015, next free slot) per ADR-0025 §Rule 1. | ||
| - [ ] **δ — write ADR-0023 placeholder file with `Status: Deferred` body.** [`decisions/README.md`](../../../decisions/README.md)'s deferred-row was added in α; per ADR-0025 §Rule 1, every Deferred ADR should still have a file with a body that explains the deferral conditions. δ writes the body. Trigger: opens any time before B2 prep needs to cross-reference the Deferred state from a real task. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The phrase "δ writes the body" is redundant and confusingly uses the task label "δ" as a subject. It would be clearer to state that the task involves writing the body or simply remove the redundant sentence.
Suggested change
| - [ ] **δ — write ADR-0023 placeholder file with `Status: Deferred` body.** [`decisions/README.md`](../../../decisions/README.md)'s deferred-row was added in α; per ADR-0025 §Rule 1, every Deferred ADR should still have a file with a body that explains the deferral conditions. δ writes the body. Trigger: opens any time before B2 prep needs to cross-reference the Deferred state from a real task. | |
| - [ ] **δ — write ADR-0023 placeholder file with `Status: Deferred` body.** [`decisions/README.md`](../../../decisions/README.md)'s deferred-row was added in α; per ADR-0025 §Rule 1, every Deferred ADR should still have a file with a body that explains the deferral conditions. This task provides the body. Trigger: opens any time before B2 prep needs to cross-reference the Deferred state from a real task. |
…ecv) + open T-015 Closes δ.2 of the post-B1-closure follow-up arc. The 2026-05-06 comprehensive code review (Track A non-blocker) and the 2026-05-07 B1 closure security review (forward-flagged item) both surfaced an asymmetric rollback in `ipc_recv_and_yield`'s Deadlock path: Phase 1's `ipc_recv` transitions the endpoint from `Idle` to `RecvWaiting`; Phase 2's Deadlock path rolls back the *scheduler* state but does NOT reverse the *endpoint* transition. v1 hides the asymmetry behind ADR-0026's `register_idle` (Deadlock is structurally unreachable when idle is registered as the dispatcher fallback), but the gap becomes a live bug under any of: - userspace-driven endpoint destroy (B2+); - multi-waiter wake-up (ADR-0019 §Open questions); - preemption (B5+). ADR-0032 settles on Option A — add `ipc_cancel_recv(...)` primitive; Deadlock path calls it before returning `Err(SchedError::Deadlock)`. The primitive becomes the single canonical "reverse a recv registration" call site that all three future arcs (destroy-drain, multi-waiter wake, preemption-rollback) will reuse, replacing the per-site duplication Option B would have created. The ADR includes a *Simulation* table per the discipline introduced by ADR-0026 and codified in `template.md` / write-adr skill in the preceding commit — the table walks Phase 2 Deadlock path under v1 + Option A through `(state-pre, action, state-post)` triples; row 3b is what the new host test will mechanically replay. ## Files changed - docs/decisions/0032-endpoint-rollback-and-cancel-recv.md (new) — ADR Proposed status; Decision outcome with Simulation table; Dependency chain naming T-015. - docs/analysis/tasks/phase-b/T-015-endpoint-rollback-cancel-recv.md (new) — Draft user-story per ADR-0025 §Rule 1 (forward-reference contract). Will move to In Progress only after ADR-0032 is Accepted. - docs/analysis/tasks/phase-b/README.md — index row for T-015 (B2 prep, Draft). - docs/decisions/README.md — index row for ADR-0032 (Proposed 2026-05-07). [Updated in earlier δ.1 commit; this commit's diff covers only the entries directly attributable to this decision-pair landing.] - docs/roadmap/phases/phase-b.md — ADR ledger gains the ADR-0032 row; non-blocking for ADR-0027 but required before B-phase userspace-destroy work. Status remains `Proposed` per the [write-adr skill's careful- re-read rule](.claude/skills/write-adr/SKILL.md): Accept may follow same-day after a careful re-read of the ADR end-to-end, but never in the same commit as the initial draft. Refs: ADR-0032, ADR-0017, ADR-0019, ADR-0021, ADR-0022, ADR-0026, T-015, comprehensive review 2026-05-06 Track A, B1 closure security review 2026-05-07 Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
…ubject wording) - line 110: "Phase α adopts" → "B2 prep adopts" (α is PR alias, not project phase) - line 149: "δ writes the body" → "This task provides the body" (δ as subject of action was confusing) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
cemililik
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 7, 2026
All five inline findings from coderabbitai's review of PR #18 verified against current state and applied. (qodo + sourcery rate-limit / cap prevented their input on this PR.) - track-d-perf.md L147: append `#L733-L745` to the bsp-qemu-virt main.rs link so the URL fragment matches the link text. - track-e-docs.md L229-233: remove accidental export artefacts (absolute local path + `Co-Authored-By:` trailer) — these belong in commit metadata, not the review body. - track-f-tests.md L43-44 + L134-138: §F-1 RecvComplete coverage gap is now closed by PR #18 commit `25854a1`'s new `cancel_recv_on_recv_complete_does_not_drop_message_or_cap` test; matrix entry updated and Finding §F-1 moved to "Minor (closed)" with a note that the new test is *stronger* than originally recommended (pins cap-bearing-state property as well). - track-g-process.md L41: fenced code block gains `text` language identifier to satisfy MD040. - current.md L17: "closure trio that lands with this PR" → "closure trio that landed in PR #16 (`95b15aa`)" — the ambiguous "this PR" reading was load-bearing only at the moment PR #16 was open; now permanent history requires a fixed reference. No code changes; no gate impact. fmt clean. Refs: PR #18 review-round (coderabbitai) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.7 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This was referenced May 8, 2026
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
What's in this PR
Test plan
Out of scope (handed off to follow-up work)
🤖 Generated with Claude Code
Summary by Sourcery
Record final closure of B1 milestone after resolving idle-dispatch regression, and rebaseline business, security, and performance artefacts post-T-014.
Enhancements:
Documentation:
Summary by CodeRabbit
Release Notes
Documentation
Chores